school attachment theory and restitution …positive social skill development and engagement of...

Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #137, October 4, 2012.

© by CJEAP and the author(s).

SCHOOL ATTACHMENT THEORY AND RESTITUTION PROCESSES:

PROMOTING POSITIVE BEHAVIORS IN MIDDLE YEARS SCHOOLS

Christine Penner, Interlake School Division,

and Dawn Wallin, University of Manitoba

This paper presents the findings of a case study that examined school attachment

and restitution strategies used in a middle years school to determine if the

program had provided a viable means of promoting and sustaining positive

behaviors among middle years students. Data were gathered by interviewing five

teachers who had Restitution I training and five students who had multiple

discipline referrals to the office, and by examining school-wide discipline referral

documentation. Students and teachers agreed that positive student–teacher

relationships and developing a warm, safe, caring classroom and school

environment were instrumental in creating the conditions for students to redress

their actions and in attaching students to their school community. Involvement in

extra-curricular activities, meeting friends, feeder school visits, the availability of

food, and having fun were other factors cited as increasing students’ connection

and sense of belonging. Collaboration with colleagues, support from

administration, speaking the same restitution language, goal setting, parental

support, and having a compassionate approach were seen as factors supporting the

implementation of restitution, whereas lack of time, not having all staff embrace

the philosophies and practices of restitution, teachers who were unwilling to share

negative experiences, and students who were hardened from a multitude of poor

life experiences and bad choices were seen as hindrances to the restitution

process.

Background

The move from an elementary school to a middle years school is a difficult transition

which marks an important milestone for the majority of adolescents (Farrell, Sullivan, Esposito,

Meyer, & Valois, 2005; Kearney, 2006; Reddy, Rhodes, & Mulhall, 2003). Hargreaves, Earl,

and Ryan (1996), cited in Patton, Glover, Bond, Butler, Godfrey, Di Pietro, and Gowes (2000),

mailto:Dawn%20Wallin%20%[email protected]%3e

School Attachment Theory and Restitution Processes: Promoting Positive Behaviors in Middle Years Schools

2

argue that the transition from elementary school to a middle years school brings with it a loss of

continuity in relationships and changes in curriculum and teaching styles, as well as adaptation to

a new school. In addition, adolescence is a stressful time for many youth as it represents a period

of growth and change emotionally, physically, intellectually, and socially (Gottfredson,

Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005). The onset of drug use, aggression, and delinquency

often begins in early adolescence which increases the difficulty of this transition (Fagon &

Pabon, 1990; Farrell et al., 2005). To make matters more complex, although adolescents in every

socio-economic level struggle with antisocial behaviors, researchers have found that adolescents

in disadvantaged communities are at a higher risk for delinquent and antisocial behaviors in

schools (Gonzales, Dumka, Deardoff, Carter, & McCray, 2004; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2006).

As a result, educators sometimes notice growth in problem behaviors when students enter

middle years as struggling adolescents. If student misbehaviors constantly disrupt the learning

process, the goal of student learning is thwarted not only for the disruptive students but for other

students in the classroom. Therefore, multiple initiatives with various levels of intervention are

needed in middle years schools (McCurdy, Kunsch, & Reibstein, 2007) to help educational

leaders support these youth in ways which do not pathologize them, but facilitate and enhance

positive social skill development and engagement of students in the learning process.

School attachment and restitution are two concepts that provide a positive framework for

studying behavior management in middle years schools that avoids the pathologizing tendencies

of punishment and consequence forms of school discipline. Students who develop positive

relationships with school personnel and who are connected to school feel a sense of belonging

within the school community (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001) which helps to decrease poor

behavior choices. Restitution is a possible framework for positive change that creates the


3

conditions and opportunities for students to redress their actions and return them to class

strengthened (Chelsom-Gossen, 1996). Further, restitution has the potential to be a pivotal

strategy for building positive student–teacher relationships. In this way, restitution provides a

positive and affirming approach to dealing with student misbehaviors and fostering student

attachment to school. The following section further develops this conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework

School Attachment

Zwarych (2004) defines school attachment as the feeling of student ownership, bonding,

and connectedness associated with the school and prominent figures in the school. It is the extent

to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others at

school (Johnson et al., 2001; Shochet, Smyth, & Homel, 2007). Research suggests that student

attachment is fostered when students’ school experiences are characterized by: (a) nurturing

relationships with teachers and other school personnel (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2006;

Cavanagh, 2009; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004; Pfaller & Kiselica, 1996; Stipek, 2006); (b) the

development of inclusive classroom environments that allow for differentiated learning (Becker

& Luthar, 2002; Matsumura, Slater, & Crosson, 2008; Shochet et al., 2007; Zwarych, 2004); (c)

involvement in extra-curricular school activities (Shochet et al., 2007; Zwarych, 2004); and, (d)

the development of a positive, safe, and caring school (Heydenberk & Heyenberk, 2007; Shaw,

2007; Shochet et al., 2007; Tharinger & Wells, 2000). However, Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van

Bockern (1990) argue,

If one looks at the structure of a traditional large urban school, one sees that

intimate primary relationships have been supplanted by an impersonal

bureaucracy. Students and teachers do not relate to one another as whole persons,

but in narrow circumscribed roles. Communication is restricted to what one can


4

and must do in a 50-minute hour where a highly structured setting is a sanction

against all but teacher-directed behavior. (p. 13)

It is therefore imperative that educators examine how the structure of schooling itself facilitates

or hinders the development of student attachment to school.

Students who are attached to school tend to demonstrate positive behavior (Erwin, 2003;

Shochet et al., 2007), improved academic standing (Johnson et al., 2001; Shochet et al., 2007),

greater participation and retention in schooling (Becker & Luthar, 2002; Reio, Marcus, &

Sanders-Reio, 2009; Shochet et al., 2007), and increased self-esteem (Reddy et al., 2003;

Shochet et al., 2007). Ultimately, school attachment has to do with a sense of belonging,

membership, and engagement within a school environment (Johnson et al., 2001). School

personnel recognize that many of the behavioral problems that require a great deal of time and

energy emanate from attachment issues (Parker & Forrest, 1993). Therefore, school personnel

can, and should, provide students with many opportunities to develop positive, supportive adult

relationships (Ziesemer, Marcoux, & Manvell, 1994) that allow for sustained contact between

students and teachers (Stipek, 2006).

Restitution

The philosophy of restitution was developed by Diane Chelsom Gossen (1996) who

argues that the discipline model used by most schools focuses on the misdemeanor and

punishment rather than on helping the child learn a better way to be (Cavanagh, 2009; Hopkins,

2002). As Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern (1990) state,

The saga of discipline in Western civilization is a litany of futile attempts to

compel the young person to obedient behavior. The consistent strategy has been to

control all deviations by punishing or excluding those who violate the rules. For

centuries, schools have used elaborate codes of regulations to attempt to instill


5

compliant behavior. However, students have been highly resourceful in

circumventing these rigid rules. (p. 30)

Cavanagh (2009) argues that traditional discipline systems fail to teach students how to resolve

conflicts nonviolently and to repair the harm to relationships resulting from wrongdoing. In this

way, schools have typically been reactive rather than proactive in dealing with student

misbehaviors and strategies are often ineffective (Hemphill, McMorris, Toumbourou,

Herrenkohl, Catalano, & Mathers, 2007; Yearwood & Abdum-Muhaymin, 2007).

The philosophy underpinning restitution can be found within Aboriginal teachings

(Brendtro et al., 1990; Ross, 1996) and western Reality Therapy (Erwin, 2003). Both

complementary sets of ideas value independent thinking and self-discipline, encourage a focus

on internal motivation rather than external motivation, and focus on solutions rather than

problems.

Restitution is a three step process which includes: 1) stabilizing students’ identity, 2)

validating the need behind the behavior, and 3) seeking the belief that needs to be upheld

(Gossen, 2004). In the first step, letting students know that it is okay to make a mistake and that

they are not the only ones who make mistakes helps move them from a failure identity where

they choose between fight or flight (acting out or withdrawal), to a success identity where they

feel empowered to move ahead and redress their actions (Erwin, 2003; Gossen, 2004). This

validation helps move students into a positive frame of mind where they are receptive to finding

solutions to fix their mistakes. Students must learn that it is acceptable to make a mistake while

sorting out their relationships with others.

In the second step, students are encouraged to find the need behind their behavior. A tenet

of Reality Therapy is that all behavior is purposeful to meet one or more of one’s basic needs: 1)

survival, 2) love and belonging, 3) personal power and worth, 4) freedom of choice and


6

movement, and 5) fun, creativity, and laughter (Gossen, 2005). The idea is to validate the need

that is driving the misbehavior, then to help the student find a positive way to have that need

met.

In the third step, educators help students understand beliefs behind the rules/expectations.

For example, a teacher might say, “We don’t call each other names because we as a class believe

in respect,” or, “We don’t run in the hallways because we believe in safety.” For this to be

effective students need to be full participants in establishing classroom expectations and beliefs

at the beginning of every school year. According to Gossen (2004), people have more energy and

enthusiasm for living by beliefs rather than following rules because beliefs are more internally

motivating.

The restitution process holds students accountable for their chosen behavior and

encourages them to learn from the experience and make a better choice next time (DeVore &

Gentilcore, 1999). When behavior problems are solved for them, students are robbed of the

opportunity to learn valuable skills for living in peaceful relationships (Cavanagh, 2009).

Instead, restitution is a collaborative process which teaches students to seek solutions to

problems, helps them think about what kind of person they want to be, and how they should treat

others (Chelsom Gossen, 1996).

Although this move from rules to beliefs is central to the restitution process, it is

important to note that schools still need to establish “bottom lines” and uphold them consistently

and publicly so that people feel safe (Gossen, 2004). The violation of bottom lines requires

administrative attention in order to create a safe learning environment for all. As with any

discipline strategy, not all students are ready for restitution, and “if a student has the mind-set not

to comply, nothing you do will make them” (Erwin, 2003, p. 20). Students will not always be in


7

a frame of mind where they will be solution focused, and restitution cannot be coerced. In order

to address this concern, Gossen (2004) developed a concept called weaving where teachers move

back and forth between being a monitor of behavior and a manager of behavior. In the monitor

position one enforces rules and uses consequences, whereas in the manager position the focus is

on beliefs and addressing the problem. Educators often have to weave back and forth between

these two positions to affect change.

Many schools that have implemented restitution programs report that they have been

successful (Minogue, 2006). In addition to noting a decrease in discipline problems (Gossen,

2004), other indicators of success include an increase in attendance, improvement in attitude,

learning, and performance (Erwin, 2003), and an increase in high school graduation rate

(Minogue, 2006). Educators also benefit from the restitution process; they have reported that

they can concentrate on their teaching, they are not working as hard, they are not as exhausted at

the end of the day, they feel healthier, and they have greater job satisfaction (Gossen, 2004).

A vision of schools in which the purpose is promoting positive social behaviors and

engaging students requires warm, caring school and classroom environments within which

students can flourish. Preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s world requires that educators

take a serious look at how discipline is handled with a focus on keeping students in school and

preparing them with the skills and knowledge necessary to become positive, contributing

members of society.

Context: Lakeview Middle Years School

Lakeview Middle Years School (pseudonym) is a large urban school in a western

Canadian city with a multicultural population including youth who are newcomers to Canada.


8

Approximately fifty percent of the students attending Lakeview Middle Years School live below

the poverty line, and approximately half of the students live in single parent families, mostly led

by single mothers. Lakeview Middle Years School has a high mobility rate with students arriving

and departing throughout the year. The prevalence of gangs, violence, crime, drugs, and alcohol

in the community has serious implications for students’ life choices. Many middle years students

arrive at the school with physical, cognitive, and behavioral disabilities. Despite the fact that

programs have been established to meet the needs of a wide diversity of learners, discipline and

behavior management continues to be a major concern.

In 2005, Lakeview Middle Years School started implementation of a restitution program,

and made school attachment strategies a focus. Implementation of a restitution program started

with all staff taking part in Restitution I training. In subsequent years new teachers to the school

were given the opportunity to attend Restitution I training as well. Every year following initial

implementation, teachers were given the opportunity to share restitution strategies in team and

grade meetings, and restitution workshops were organized for school-based professional

development days. Students were introduced to restitution strategies at grade assemblies, and

parents/guardians were invited to attend an evening meeting where they were introduced to the

concepts of restitution. The initial and primary goal of implementing a restitution program at the

school was to decrease the number of out-of-school suspensions and to help students make better

behavioral choices.

This paper presents the findings of a case study that examined school attachment and

restitution strategies used in Lakeview Middle Years School to determine if the five-year old

program had provided a viable means of promoting and sustaining positive behaviors among

middle years students from the perspectives of teachers and students. Also examined were


9

factors (organizational, logistical, or personal) that either supported or hindered the

implementation and/or use of restitution and/or school attachment strategies in the middle years

school environment.

Methods

This study utilized a qualitative methodology based upon a case study method during the

2010/2011 school year. Purposive sampling was used in order to access participants. Semi-

structured interviews were conducted with five teachers who had received Restitution I training

and who had attempted to implement restitution and school attachment strategies in their

classrooms. Also interviewed were five students who had learned about restitution strategies

upon their arrival at Lakeview Middle Years School and who had ten or more discipline referrals

to the office by the end of the 2008/2009 school year. Though the study itself began in the

2009/2010 school year, the data collected spanned a little over the school year given the time to

complete university and school division ethics procedures. During the interview process both

students and teachers were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the restitution program

and school attachment strategies in reducing classroom discipline and student misbehaviors. A

document analysis was also conducted of discipline referral documents from 2004–2009 in order

to determine the rates of referrals, out-of-school suspensions, in-school suspensions, students

sent home for the day, detentions, and mediations over time.

Constant comparison of interview data was used to discover emerging themes from the

students’ and teachers’ perspectives. After the data were coded and themes were identified,

patterns were drawn between codes. Discipline referral documentation were analyzed using

frequencies to compare the number of discipline referrals in a school year (2005–2009), out-of-


10

school suspensions (2004–2009), in-school suspensions (2005–2009), students sent home for the

day (2005–2009), detentions (2005–2009), and mediations (2005–2009) in each successive

school year at Lakeview Middle Years School. These data were examined for patterns of

development in each of the categories after implementation of the restitution program and

making school attachment strategies a focus. The data obtained from document analysis were

then scrutinized to see if they verified or supported the data collected from the student and

teacher interviews.

Findings

The themes that were generated from the data analysis are detailed in the subsequent

sections and organized according to the concepts of student attachment, restitution, and factors

that support or hinder both.

Student Attachment

All students and teachers were in agreement that positive student–teacher relationships

are crucial in connecting students to their school. This aligns with Ziesemer et al. (1994) who

found that schools are places where students should have opportunities to develop positive,

supportive adult relationships. Both students and teachers identified caring as an important

teacher quality which increased students’ sense of belonging. Getting along with teachers and

sensing that teachers liked them were important to the student participants. For example, one

student stated that school attendance increased because of “the teachers that I like, the classes

that I like going to, like I love going to them. . . . I love going to school.” This student went on to

say that teachers at school really care and that “they are just very welcoming.” Another student


11

commented, “it seems like a lot of teachers like me there . . . and want me to stay in school.” A

third student responded that the “teacher says that I belong in the class…that she likes me in the

class.” Teachers who genuinely cared for them helped increase their connection to the school

community.

All teachers agreed that taking the time to build relationships with students helped

students feel that they belonged to the school community. One teacher argued, “I think you have

to be intentional about building relationships. I don’t think it happens because you’re in the same

room with kids. I think it has to be intentional.” A second teacher said that, in order to build

those relationships, “show students that you are willing to give up your time to be there for them

and they’ll in a snap of a finger open up to you in a second.” A third teacher stated simply, “kids

are smart. They know if you care.” Strong student–teacher relationships were seen as a crucial

component in making students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported in

the classroom and school community.

Students and teachers were unanimous in their responses regarding the crucial role extra-

curricular activities play in attaching students to their school community. This points to the

importance of providing students with a variety of extra-curricular options in order to be

inclusive and to actively engage all students. Some of the activities that the students mentioned

included: sports teams, band, art (claymation), school plays, women empowerment groups and

sharing circles, the weight room, language classes (Cree, Ojibway, and Tagalog), Aboriginal

community groups coming into the school, field trips, and a chess club. One student mentioned

the importance of offering a variety of activities where many different students could fit in. This

student stated that extra-curricular activities “made people feel welcome because they had

somewhere to go because some groups they don’t fit in.” A second student thought that the


12

school could do better by “putting you into a sport or something like that.” Fagan and Pabon

(1990) argue that “the interaction between school-based and nonacademic factors in contributing

to school dropout suggests that schools should broaden their role in the lives of students outside

the classroom” (p. 340). One of the teachers suggested that “being part of a sport is wearing the

uniform . . . and gives them a sense of belonging, and showing them that they are proud to be a

part of the school.” Another teacher added, “once kids get involved then you know there is a

sense of belonging. Then they are with people getting hooked up with kids with similar interests

and getting their peer groups established.” In their view, getting involved in extra-curricular

activities helps build student–teacher relationships and gives students a niche where they feel

included and feel that they belong.

The availability of food was another school attachment strategy mentioned by both

students and teachers. Students and teachers talked about the breakfast and lunch program at the

school, as well as the availability of snacks in the classroom. Robertson (1999) found that

children born into poverty are less likely to have access to nutritious food, and the Canadian

School Board Association (1997) states that food deprivation influences daily concentration and

learning. Many students at Lakeview Middle Years School live below the poverty line which

makes access to nutrition a large concern. As one teacher commented, “we know when you’re

hungry or you’re tired, learning is the last thing you’re going to worry about. Not only that, your

brain is not developing properly and that’s compromising your ability to learn along with

everything else.” Teachers strongly believed that the breakfast and lunch program, as well as the

availability of snacks were a factor in attaching students to school and decreasing behavior

problems.


13

Students and teachers noted having fun as an important school attachment strategy.

Students enjoyed going to classes where teachers made learning fun. Nicholas Hobbs, cited in

Brendtro et al. (1990), put forth the principle that “each child should know some joy each day

and look forward to some joyous event for the morrow” (p. 84). One of the teachers argued that

“. . . kids respond to having fun with people who have the potential to be significant.” This

teacher added that “having fun, having a sense of humor I think is bigger than we ever know.”

Teachers agreed that laughing together with students and providing activities that were fun was

bonding and increased a student’s desire to come to school.

According to all the students, meeting friends at school was a key factor in connecting

them to school. When students were asked what made them want to come to school, the first

response for all of them was to see their friends and to socialize: “to see my friends,” “my friends

make me want to go to school,” “mostly to socialize,” and “my friends . . . I usually walk around

with my friends.” These comments speak to the importance of friends in early adolescence for

developing a sense of belonging. When asked what more the school could do to make students

feel that they belonged, one student commented that it would be nice to have more places in the

school where students could “chill” with friends.

Teachers thought that feeder school visits were essential in helping transition students to

Lakeview Middle Years School. One teacher talked about the feeder school visits as “. . . an

outreach to get more of the younger kids feeling safe coming here” and for them to “. . . meet

some of the staff.” Going to feeder schools and showcasing the many programs available at

Lakeview Middle Years School was viewed as a way to spark student interest and begin the

attachment process.


14

Restitution

According to students and teachers, restitution was viewed as an effective tool to help

students “fix their mistakes” and to help them make better behavioral choices. Students were

grateful to be given a second chance, and pointed to mediation as an effective strategy in dealing

with conflict situations. For example, one student commented that teachers “. . . give us a second

chance, and they’ll help us through it and like talk us through everything.” Another student said,

“I felt better because I got a second chance to do something.” One student proudly stated that

after having fixed a mistake with a teacher, the teacher “. . . now wants me in class.” Giving

students a second chance helped students feel better about themselves and made them want to try

to make better choices the next time they were confronted with a similar issue. Fights over

boyfriends and a fight in dodgeball were two examples that were cited where mediation had

taken place. Two students indicated that after the mediation process they had become friends

with the person with whom they had the conflict, suggesting, “we’re really good friends now.”

Teachers agreed that the restitution process was most successful with clearly delineated

bottom lines about school beliefs. Bottom lines that were mentioned included “weapons,”

“verbally assaulting a student or staff member,” “physical altercations,” “drugs,” “theft,”

“vandalism,” and “bullying.” One teacher stated that bottom lines are “those things that you need

to send a very clear message that you’re not going to tolerate it whether it’s respect for people’s

safety, weapons, or those kinds of things.” They also agreed that restitution posters posted on

bulletin boards in all middle years classrooms were a help to teachers in using consistent

restitution questions when dealing with students, and promoted the use of a common restitution

language. These lines of questioning underscore the importance of helping students reflect on

their behavior, guide students in the problem solving process, and figure out the underlying


15

reasons for their misbehavior. One teacher talked about the importance of coaching students

through the restitution process, stating that teachers need to “coach [students] through the first or

second experience that they have with it [restitution] to show them how it works . . . because it’s

new to them.” All teachers stressed the importance of taking time to talk to students to try to find

out what was happening in their lives. One teacher emphasized the importance of “just talking

with students and trying to get to the root of the problem, trying to get them to make good

decisions.” Another teacher succinctly stated that students “. . . could have no food, they could

have been yelled at in the morning, or their friend could be teasing them on Facebook. Anything

can make a child act up. You have to figure out what it is.” By understanding the underlying

reasons why students misbehave, teachers could often help students “. . . deal with negative

situations in their life and to help them work through a problem.”

This study found that developing respectful, trusting student–teacher relationships was a

condition that needed to be in place for students to redress their actions. Brendtro, Brokenleg,

and Van Bockern (1990) state that “trust is an essential ingredient in building effective

relationships” (p. 79). Building positive relationships with students lays the foundation upon

which students are empowered to take responsibility for their behaviors, knowing that their

teachers will still care for them even if they do make mistakes. One teacher commented that if

teachers take time to build relationships with students, “you’re going to find tons of other

behavior diminished because they start to trust you and they start to realize that this person is

there for them rather than always sending them off to somebody else. . . . If they’re going to fix

their mistakes and open up to you and say this is the way I can do it, then they need to trust that

you are willing to listen.” Another teacher stated that in order for students to feel comfortable

about redressing their misbehavior, they have to trust that “. . . the world is not going to end . . .


16

and that they are not going to be thrown out as a person.” Other factors that helped teachers work

with students included being conscious of their tone of voice, having patience and a calm

demeanor, ensuring that students were in a calm frame of mind before being spoken to, and the

creation of a safe environment.

Teachers stated that more professional development opportunities and resources were

needed to keep restitution alive in their school. One teacher said that, “by sharing a little bit

about what’s going well we get reaffirmed and it gives us new energy to keep trying . . . and

hearing from other people can tell us that they have their ups and downs as well. It doesn’t

always have to be their success. It could be something that didn’t work well.” Overall, teachers

felt that a small group setting was more conducive to asking questions and sharing both positive

and negative experiences with restitution.

Effectiveness of Restitution and School Attachment Practices

This study found that restitution and school attachment practices provide a strong base

upon which students are empowered to make better behavioral choices. According to the

students and teachers in this study, restitution and school attachment practices are instrumental in

decreasing student misbehaviors. Data collected from discipline referral documents (Table 1 and

Table 2) support this finding.


17

Table 1

Suspension Data

04–05 05–06 06–07 07–08 08–09

Out-of-school suspensions 266 201 129 124 92

Days suspended 775 592 378 362 264

Table 2

Discipline Referral Data

05–06 06–07 07–08 08–09

Discipline referrals 2096 1912 2074 1653

In-school suspensions 463 578 390 323

Sent home for the day 287 209 204 201

Detentions 232 45 21 12

Mediations 127 163 138 48

The data in the tables demonstrate that after implementing a restitution program and

making school attachment strategies a focus, Lakeview Middle Years School saw a 65%

decrease in the number of out-of-school suspensions in four years, and a decrease in the number

of students sent home for the day, in-school suspensions, and detentions. This shows a trend

away from punishment-based discipline methods.


18

Data show an initial increase in the number of mediations, suggesting that an effort was

made to deal with conflict situations in a respectful way thereby repairing the harm done to

relationships. Students talked about having taken part in the mediation process and how that had

helped them resolve conflicts with other students. As the number of out out-of-school

suspensions and in-school-suspensions decreased, the number of mediations decreased as well.

These data may support the notion that after a few years of restitution, students started making

better behavioral choices thereby decreasing the number of mediations that had to be done.

A note of interest is that, despite a decrease in the number of out-of-school suspensions,

in-school suspensions, students sent home for the day, and detentions, the rate of discipline

referrals to the office did not decrease until the fourth year of implementation. One possible

reason for this could be that there was more teacher engagement as the years progressed with

teachers starting to implement restitution in their classrooms. Another possible reason is that

teachers who were implementing restitution in their classrooms started feeling more comfortable

with the process, thereby increasing the effectiveness of restitution strategies. A final possibility

is that students had developed positive relationships with administration and were referred to the

office prior to making poor choices.

Students and teachers felt that restitution and school attachment practices were effective

in decreasing student misbehaviors because the focus of both is relationship building.

Developing positive relationships with students was seen as an important component in

connecting students to school as well as being a pre-requisite in dealing with behavior

management issues in the classroom and in the school. Teachers felt that with every student

relationship that was developed there was an increase in investment on the part of the student.

One teacher commented that, throughout the course of the year, “. . . with the use of restitution


19

the number of offenses will go down because I truly do believe that a large number of kids do

buy in to that process. . . . Students are used to just being yelled at and not given a voice so in a

restitution setting they are allowed to first of all explore their thought processes and their

emotions, and then they are also given the opportunity to fix it.” A second teacher mentioned,

“we see effectiveness at times where kids are getting it. They are learning. Their incidence of

repeat offending goes down. It is effective, and for some the effectiveness is fairly immediate

. . . and for others, you may see it a few years later as kids start to mature.”

According to both teachers and students in this study, restitution is effective in promoting

student growth. Teachers and students agreed that restitution practices encouraged students to

take responsibility for their actions and helped them come up with a plan to redress them.

Students talked about learning from their mistakes and not wanting to repeat the same behavior.

One student argued, “it makes you think that you have to make better choices or else you’re

doing it a second time and it’s not going to be good . . . it’s trying to make you be better.”

Another student who was very positive about the effectiveness of restitution stated, “everyone

should have the need to learn from their mistakes. They need to know that they did wrong and

learn from it.” This student also stated that restitution was a more effective way of dealing with

misbehaviors than punishment, “because I got to realize what I was doing wrong.” Finally, a

fourth student, when speaking about the effectiveness of restitution, commented that “sometimes

it worked well and sometimes it didn’t.” This same student went on to say that restitution

“helped me make better choices.” These comments imply that the restitution process is a learning

experience for many students. They may not understand the process the first time around, but

over time they begin to understand the connections between their behavior and the need for

restitution, and truly want to make better choices. Teacher comments aligned with this idea, as


20

one suggested, “many students don’t have boundaries. . . . They don’t have social skills. They

are completely devoid of a lot of life skills and I think restitution, consequence, accountability,

responsibility are maybe the most important life lessons to learn. . . . So I think restitution is a

wonderful life skill.” Another commented that using restitution to deal with misbehaviors was

effective because “. . . through a bad thing you can teach two to three good lessons and help the

kid grow. . . . You are taking negative things in their lives and teaching them positive lessons.”

By building relationships and connecting with students, students feel free to take risks in dealing

with their misbehaviors without the fear of rejection from significant adults in their lives.

Students and teachers stated that the restitution process was effective because it helped

students stay in school. Working with students to help them come up with a plan to redress their

actions was seen as more effective than suspending them or sending them home. One student

stated that she liked restitution “because you’re still in school instead of staying out of school for

quite awhile.” Another student suggested that “for the kids who do care about their education

and everything, they want to make up for their mistakes. They don’t want to just get kicked out

of school.” Giving students a second chance gave them the opportunity to learn from their

mistakes, and keeping students in school increased opportunities for making connections and

instilled hope for their future.

Restitution was also seen as effective in promoting teacher growth. With restitution,

teachers indicated that they learned a better way of dealing with student misbehaviors, thereby

decreasing the number of behavior incidents in their classrooms. Teachers believed that the

move away from punishment oriented discipline to self discipline was a paradigm shift resulting

in teacher learning. One teacher commented that with restitution, “. . . as teachers started to use

the language, things were dealt with in a different way. The teacher’s tone and language were


21

different, the response of the child would be different, and that’s one factor I think that might

have made fewer kids wind up in the office which is ultimately what you want.” Another teacher

stated that restitution was effective “. . . because we saw a change in how teachers handled

students. We saw a change in teachers’ mode of operating. Not for all but for some. And I would

say for all to some degree because that’s where the accountability came in. We were moving

towards a target so if you weren’t totally converted you were in the ball game. We are all at

different places.” Although teachers may be at different places on a continuum of

implementation, teachers who actively use restitution saw it as an effective way in decreasing

student misbehaviors because teachers were learning a more humane way to work with students

which kept their dignity intact. With time, experience, and increased knowledge, teachers

indicated that this shift proved to be a better way to engage students in the discipline process.

In this study, students and teachers agreed that restitution and school attachment practices

were effective in improving school climate. Building positive student–teacher relationships,

engaging students in the discipline process, getting involved in extra-curricular activities, and the

availability of food all contributed to creating a warm, welcoming school climate where students

felt a tremendous sense of belonging. All these factors helped improve student behavior because

school was where they wanted to be. As one teacher commented, “there was a different tone in

the building . . . a healthier tone.”

According to students and teachers, restitution is not effective with all students. Teachers

commented that restitution was ineffective with students who do not take responsibility for their

actions. Students echoed that sentiment, stating that restitution was ineffective with “gangsters”

and students who do not care about their education. It was clear on the part of both students and

teachers that for students who were not ready for the restitution process there had to be a return


22

to consequences. This is congruent with Gossen’s (2004) concept of weaving where teachers

constantly weave between monitoring and managing behavior. Teachers felt that they needed to

persevere with these students and continue to try to develop relationships with them in the hope

that they would eventually be empowered to own their behavior and be willing to redress their

actions.

Teachers acknowledged the effectiveness of restitution strategies but indicated that it was

often teachers themselves who hindered its efforts. A lack of knowledge, a lack of willingness to

give restitution strategies a try, and a lack of willingness to learn from their own mistakes were

seen as detrimental to the implementation of restitution in the school. Teachers commented that

this kind of attitude made restitution ineffective in individual classrooms.

Factors that Support and Hinder School Attachment and Restitution Practices

School attachment. In this study, teachers identified appropriate programming for

students, and staff willingness to participate in extra-curricular activities as factors that supported

school attachment strategies. One teacher talked about engaging students in the classroom by

saying, “it is how the classroom operates. Are the kids engaged? Are the classrooms a place of

hands on? Are they excited about being in the room? Are they doing group things? Are they

sitting in rows? Are they sitting, opening up a booklet, working, no interaction, a bit of mass

teaching at the front and then that’s it? That’s when behaviors tend to start.” Teachers thought

that providing relevant programming and increasing opportunities for extra-curricular

involvement helped increase students’ desire to come to (and stay in) school, and to make better

behavioral choices.


23

Factors that were seen as hindering school attachment practices included lack of time,

low staff morale, and out-of-school suspensions. As with restitution, all teachers agreed that lack

of time hindered their participation in school attachment strategies. With increased demands on

teacher time related to directives from the government, school initiatives, and differentiating

instruction for all students in the classroom, teachers felt that they often lacked time to

participate in the various school initiated attachment strategies, or to initiate school attachment

practices on their own.

Low staff morale was also seen as a hindrance to school attachment strategies. Staff who

did not feel supported by administration felt discouraged about their work. This decreased the

time and effort that they put into school attachment practices. When asked what hindered school

attachment practices, one teacher responded, “the morale of staff. . . . Staff may feel burnt out

just from day to day experiences within the classroom setting, or they may not feel that they are

supported by administration. . . . This makes it important to make sure that staff are always at

their best. Sometimes that may not be the case, and that truly affects the level of attachment that

the kids are going to feel.” Dealing with challenging behaviors day in and day out can be

stressful, tiring, and energy draining. Creating a warm, caring, supportive environment within

which staff feel free to take risks was seen as a positive way to promote more use of school

attachment strategies.

Lastly, teachers indicated that out-of-school suspensions decreased opportunities to

connect with students. Although teachers recognized the importance of upholding bottom lines,

they agreed that there were situations where keeping students in school with in-school

suspensions was a far greater learning experience than having them go home for a few days

where they were often left unsupervised. Keeping the connection to school helped to build


24

student–teacher relationships, and provided opportunities for teachers to continue to dialogue

with students about their ways of relating and being with others.

Restitution. Collaboration with colleagues, support from administration, speaking the

same restitution language, setting goals with students, having parental support, and

demonstrating a compassionate, caring approach towards students were all cited by teachers as

supporting the implementation of restitution. Teachers were unanimous about the importance of

collaborating with colleagues in order to move the restitution agenda forward. One teacher

described the need for collegial collaboration as a set of concentric circles, stating, “if you think

about concentric circles where the two person team is one circle, the grade team is another circle,

and the school team is the third circle, that debriefing and touching up happens in all of those

circles at some point so that those connections stay.” Teachers acknowledged that meeting with

teaching partners, in grade teams, or student services teams greatly supported the implementation

and success of restitution strategies.

Support from administration was another factor in support of the restitution process. One

teacher commented that restitution works “. . . best if it comes through the administration, to the

leaders, to the team, to the class. . . . It will be most successful if it is coming from the

administration. . . . That’s where you’ll find that it has the most impact.” In general, teachers

wanted to know that something would be done when students were sent to the office for

violating bottom line expectations, and that administration would support teachers when teachers

attempted to implement restitution strategies.

Speaking the same restitution language was viewed as supporting the restitution process.

One teacher stated, “as we’re learning a new language, if we’re not practicing it, if people aren’t

correcting us, if we’re not correcting ourselves we won’t learn that language well. . . . So that’s


25

how it becomes most effective . . . speaking a common language at all levels.” Teachers agreed

that using a common restitution language was essential for providing consistency in their

approach to working with students.

Goal setting, either long term goals or short term goals, was seen as a great aid to the

implementation of restitution. Having students think about what it was they wanted to achieve

either academically or behaviorally, then writing those goals down on paper helped students

focus on making better choices. In addition, teachers indicated that parental support was

instrumental in helping students redress their actions and supporting them in making better

behavioral choices. Hampton, Mumford, and Bond (1998) argue that “of the many problems that

plague urban schools, an apparent inability to reap the benefits of parent participation is among

the most crucial” (p. 411). Parental involvement and support was seen as having a large impact

on improving student behavior.

Finally, restitution strategies were more effective when teachers used a compassionate,

caring approach. Neufeld and Mate (2004) suggest that “children learn best when they like their

teacher and they think their teacher likes them. The way to children’s minds has always been

through their hearts” (p. 173). Ensuring that students know that they will not be rejected even if

they make mistakes, empowers them to take responsibility for their behavior and to take risks in

coming up with ways to fix those mistakes.

Factors that were seen as hindering the restitution process included lack of time for

debriefing, not having all staff embrace restitution practices, teachers’ egos, and getting through

to students who were hardened by life experiences. All teachers agreed that lack of time was a

great hindrance with the implementation of restitution. As one teacher stated, “I hear teachers

talk a lot about time. Having time to debrief . . . and it doesn’t happen without time being


26

planned for it. It’s not incidental.” Teachers acknowledged that they often did not have enough

time to talk to students about misbehaviors that occurred in the classroom and to help students

come up with successful plans for fixing their mistakes.

Teachers agreed that not having all staff make the paradigm shift from punishment to

restitution was a great hindrance to restitution implementation, and made it difficult to discipline

students with consistency, especially if one’s teaching partner was not embracing this

philosophy. One teacher reflected that “if you’re in a situation where you are doing it as a team

and it’s not filtering down through the school, you feel the dead weight of that. You feel how

hard that is to maintain and continue because the other presses against you. You’re always

pressing back instead of having everybody being on the same page. . . . It doesn’t make it less

worth it, but it’s harder.” Teachers indicated that for school-wide implementation of restitution to

be most successful, all staff needed to embrace the philosophies and practices of restitution.

Teachers’ lack of confidence in sharing both positive and negative experiences with

restitution was seen as hindering the restitution process. Teachers thought that, in order for

restitution to be successful, teachers needed to “check their egos at the door” and be willing to

talk about strategies that did not work and ask other teachers for input with regards to what

he/she could have done differently. This kind of informal sharing in a small group format was

seen as being greatly beneficial in helping teachers learn and grow in their use of restitution

strategies.

Finally, teachers commented that it was often difficult to reach students who have been

hardened by life experiences. One teacher suggested, “chronic offenders seem to be in a place

where they’ve given up hope . . . in life in general. You can tell right away when that student is

sitting in the classroom and they just don’t care.” Another teacher stated, “some kids get it and


27

some kids don’t. . . . If a student is never going to take responsibility for what they did you can

restitute them until the cows come home and it’s not going to do anything.” This teacher added

that the effectiveness of restitution was “a matter of readiness, not a matter that restitution does

not work.” Teachers understood that for students who were not ready for restitution there had to

be a return to the use of consequences as a means of ensuring safety for all students in the

building.

Conclusions

Teachers are constantly in search of behavior management strategies that are effective in

the classroom. Administrators play a crucial role in structuring school discipline within their

schools and supporting teachers in the classroom. Implementing a collaborative approach

towards discipline amongst educators, along with the implementation of a strong shared vision

regarding the importance of restitution, can do much to bring about positive behavior change in

students. The results of this study suggest that school attachment strategies and restitution

programs have the potential to reduce negative behaviors and bring about long term changes in

student behavior.

A school’s administrative team can do much to control factors affecting a school’s

learning and social environment. A few of these factors include meeting students’ basic needs

(Raine, McIntyre, & Dayle, 2003; Ziesemer et al., 1994), hiring quality staff (Skrla, Scheurich,

Garcia, & Nolly, 2004), continually striving to improve school–community relations (Ahnee-

Benham, 2003; Dantley, 2005; Sefa Dei, 2002), providing relevant programming (Ziesemer et

al., 1994), and creating a school culture grounded in collaboration and teamwork. These same


28

factors undergird effective restitution programs and help to foster student attachment which

provides a springboard for students to experience positive academic and behavioral outcomes.

Out of the results of this study flow recommendations for teachers and administrators.

Firstly, teachers must make relationship building a priority. Connecting with students and letting

them know that teachers care about them is pivotal in helping students want to make better

behavioral choices and attaching them to the school community. Dooner, Mandzuk,

Obendoerfer, Babiuk, Cerqueira-Vassallo, Force, Vermette, and Roy (2010) state, “teachers must

foster individualized connections with students as an essential part of establishing and

maintaining learning relationships; we all need to feel understood and appreciated” (p. 30). The

core finding of this study is reiterated by Cavanagh (2009) who contends, “. . . at the core of

what schools are about is relationships . . . you can get the curriculum right, but if the

relationships are not right, the school will not succeed” (p. 71).

Secondly, teachers need to create safe, fun, engaging learning environments within their

classrooms. Caring about students and making learning relevant are instrumental in engaging

students in the learning process. To successfully engage students in the learning process, teachers

need to know individual students as learners, then modify teaching practices to address their

individual learning needs (Dooner et al., 2010). Along with social and pedagogical authority,

teachers need to establish structure and routine, and clearly articulate classroom expectations.

Students will flourish within these boundaries knowing that they are free to take risks and that

they won’t be rejected when mistakes are made. A positive classroom climate is one that

promotes emotional safety for all students (Matsumura et al., 2008).

Thirdly, getting involved in extra-curricular activities helps teachers connect with

students and build on existing relationships outside the classroom context. Although lack of time


29

may be a hindrance to getting involved, making the effort to participate in some form of extra-

curricular activity has the potential to pay huge dividends down the road in terms of decreasing

negative student behaviors.

This research study did not interview administrators and therefore some of our

implications and/or recommendations need to be considered with that caveat. However, we

believe that the data gathered from students and teachers bring to light implications for

administrators which would be helpful in implementing restitution and school attachment

practices within school systems. For administrators, it is recommended that a systems-based

preventative approach to school discipline be designed. Meeting regularly with administrators in

feeder schools, and discussing how behavior management strategies could be consistent between

all schools would do much to encourage positive behaviors starting in nursery school. The

transition to a middle years school would be made easier if feeder schools used common

restitution language, and practices. Encouraging parents/guardians to use restitution strategies at

home would provide consistency with regards to how misbehaviors are dealt with at home and at

school.

At the school level, administrators should include all stakeholders in professional

development opportunities as they relate to school discipline. Implementation of a restitution

program will be most successful if all stakeholders have a working knowledge of restitution

philosophies and strategies, and are consistent in the ways with which student misbehaviors are

dealt. Student services teams need to meet regularly to maintain fluidity and continuity in

programming for individual student needs. Restitution programs should be linked to other

programs and initiatives within the school. Regular (and critical) analysis of discipline data can


30

also help improve safety within schools, inform student programming, and inform interventions

when needed.

Secondly, administrators must ensure that ongoing professional development

opportunities are available and that time is set aside within the school setting to discuss both the

pros and cons of restitution strategies in small group settings. In addition, students must be

provided with meaningful engagement and learning experiences. Administrators must ensure that

programs are relevant not only in the classroom but for extra-curricular activities as well.

Engaging students in the learning process is a protection against antisocial behavior (Morrison et

al., 2002). Lopez (2003) states that we need educational leaders who have the courage to

envision different possibilities for schooling, especially for our most disenfranchised youth and

communities.

Thirdly, it is essential for school administrators to hire quality staff who will create a

warm, caring, loving environment within which proactive discipline initiatives can have a

positive impact on both students and teachers. High quality teachers and staff are key

determinants of students’ opportunities to be successful (Skrla et al., 2004). Gregory (1995)

suggests that young adolescents need guidance and caring adults in their lives. Hiring high

quality staff will help ease the transition for students to a middle school environment and help

engage students in the educational process including discipline.

In tandem to hiring quality staff comes the need to build strong staff morale which

requires educational leaders to value and appreciate all staff members. Teachers are the core

resource of any restitution program as they are front and center in the classroom with students

when misbehaviors occur. Administrators need to support those teachers and ensure that they

build in time for collaborative decision making, team building activities, and developing trusting


31

relationships. Murphy (2005) argues that educational leaders must learn to lead not from the

apex of the organizational pyramid but from a web of interpersonal relationships. High staff

morale is key in developing and maintaining a caring, engaging school atmosphere.

Fifthly, all students come to school with basic needs. Administrators must remain

cognizant of the fact that some students come to school without their basic needs being met.

Ensuring that our schools help meet the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, safety, love, and

belonging is not only a message of care, but also a determinant in helping these students succeed

at school academically and behaviorally.

Sixthly, administrators should make an effort to connect with students, staff, and

parents/guardians in order to increase learning opportunities for students. Strong connections

with students, families, and communities can help enhance positive behavioral choices and

academic achievement (AhNee-Benham, 2003; Dantley, 2005). Sefa Dei (2002) argues that

“parents, communities, and schools have to work in concert to bring about desired changes” (p.

177). By connecting with students and parents/guardians, and by encouraging staff to make these

same connections, administrators are building capacity within the school community and the

community at large. These connections are crucial in helping students make positive behavioral

choices and foster academic achievement.

Finally, patience is a critical leadership characteristic. Positive behavioral change takes

considerable time for individuals and a whole school culture. As with all individuals, students

are appreciative of being given a second chance. Educational leaders need to let students and

teachers know that they will never give up on them. Patience is more than a requirement or a

supporting attribute. It is a prerequisite to real change.


32

Along with the practice-oriented suggestions also stem interesting future research

possibilities. Further research on restitution and school attachment practices should include: (a)

differential contexts (elementary and high schools; rural, urban, northern, or suburban

communities; contexts amenable, or resistant, to change); (b) the relationship between

restitution/school attachment and academic achievement; (c) potential differential impacts of

these concepts by sex, ethnicity, disability, etc.; and (d) differences in the perceptions of

effectiveness by career stage (beginning and/or novice teachers, level of administration, etc.).

In conclusion, the focus that Lakeview Middle Years School has placed on restitution and

school attachment strategies has resulted in significant decreases in student misbehaviors. This

focus has made Lakeview Middle Years School an increasingly effective school undergoing

positive transformational change. If restitution and school attachment practices have been

effective in promoting positive behaviors at Lakeview Middle Years School, it is possible that

these strategies could work in other school contexts as well.

Teachers and administrators can do much to foster resilience and hope among students,

and to increase opportunities to develop academically, emotionally, and behaviorally (Zambrana

& Zoppi, 2002). This study found restitution and school attachment practices to be effective in

promoting positive behaviors in middle years students. Restructuring school discipline to be

proactive rather than reactive in ways that maintain the dignity of youth and foster positive

relationships is instrumental in building schools that are institutions of hope and social change.


33

References

AhNee-Benham, M. K. P. (2003). In our Mother’s voice: A native woman’s knowing of

leadership. In M. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in

educational leadership (pp.223–245). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Children’s appraisal of teacher as a secure base and

their socio-emotional and academic adjustment in middle childhood. Research in

Education, 7, 1–18.

Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes

among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist,

37, 197–214.

Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope

for the future. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Retrieved from

http://www.reclaiming.com/content/about-circle-of-courage

Canadian School Boards Association. (1997). Students in poverty: Towards awareness, action,

and wider knowledge. Canadian School Boards Association.

Cavanagh, T. (2009). Creating schools of peace and nonviolence in a time of war and violence.

Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 64–80.

Chelsom-Gossen, D. (1996). Restitution: Restructuring school discipline (2nd

ed.). Chapel Hill,

NC: New View.

Dantley, M. E. (2005). African American spirituality and Cornet West’s notions of prophetic

pragmatism: Restructuring educational leadership in American urban schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 651–674.

DeVore, D., & Gentilcore, K. (1999). Balanced and restorative justice and educational

programming for youth at-risk. Clearing House, 73(2).

Dooner, A., Mandzuk, D., Obendoerfer, P., Babiuk, G., Cerqueira-Vassallo, G., Force, V.,

Vermette, M., & Roy, D. (2010). Examining student engagement and authority:

Developing learning relationships in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 41(4),

28–35.

Erwin, J. (2003). Giving students what they need. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 19–23.

Fagan, J., & Pabon, E. (1990). Contributions of delinquency and substance use to school dropout

among inner-city youth. Youth and Society, 21(3), 306–354.

Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., Esposito, L. E., Meyer, A. L., & Valois, R. F. (2005). A latent

growth curve analysis of the structure of aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors


34

and their interrelations over time in urban and rural adolescents. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 15, 179–203.

Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Deardorff, J., Carter, S. J., & McCray, A. (2004). Preventing

poor mental health and school dropout of Mexican American adolescents following the

transition to junior high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 113–131.

Gossen, D. (2005). My child is a pleasure. Saskatoon: Chelsom Consultants.

Gossen, D. (2004). It’s all about we: Rethinking discipline using restitution. Saskatoon: Chelsom

Consultants.

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School

climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency

prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.

Gregory, L. W. (1995). The “turnaround” process: Factors influencing the school success of

urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 136–154.

Hampton, F. M., Mumford, D. A., & Bond, L. (1998). Parent involvement in inner-city schools:

The project FAST extended family approach to success. Urban Education, 33, 410-427.

Hemphill, S. A., McMorris, B. J., Toumbourou, J. W., Herrenkohl, T. I., Catalano, R. F., &

Mathers, M. (2007). Rates of student-reported antisocial behavior, school suspensions,

and arrests in Victoria, Australia, and Washington State, United States. Journal of School

Health, 77, 303–311.

Heydenberk, R. A., & Heydenberk, W. R. (2007). The conflict resolution connection: Increasing

school attachment in cooperative classroom communities. Reclaiming Children and

Youth, 16(3), 18–22.

Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17, 144–149.

Johnson, K. M., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic

engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74, 318–340.

Kearney, C. A. (2006). Dealing with school refusal behavior: A primer for family physicians.

Journal of Family Practice, 55, 685–692.

Kennedy, J. H., & Kennedy, C. E. (2004). Attachment theory: Implications for school

psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 41(2), 247–259.

Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory

perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68–94.


35

Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction

and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary

School Journal, 108, 293–312.

McCurdy, B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school:

Implementing the behavior education program. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 12–19.

Minogue, S. (2006). Restitution: Replacing rules with beliefs. Education Canada, 46(3), 68.

Morrison, G. M., Robertson, L., Laurie, B., & Kelly, J. (2002). Protective factors related to

antisocial behavior trajectories. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 277–290.

Murphy, J. (2005, Feb). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns

in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 154–191.

Neufeld, G., & Mate, G. (2004). Hold on to your kids. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

Parker, K. C., & Forrest, D. (1993). Attachment disorder: An emerging concern for school

counselors. Guidance and Counseling, 27, 209–215.

Patton, G. C., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., Di Pietro, G., & Gowes, G. (2000).

The Gatehouse Project: A systematic approach to mental health promotion in secondary

schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 586–593.

Pfaller, J. E., & Kiselica, M. S. (1996). Implications of attachment theory for the role of school

counselors. School Counselor, 43(6).

Raine, K., McIntyre, L., & Dayle, J.B. (2003). The failure of charitable school and community-

based nutrition programmes to feed hungry children. Critical Public Health, 13, 155.

Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student

adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development and

Psychopathology, 15, 119–138.

Reio Jr., T.G., Marcus, R.F., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2009). Contribution of student and instructor

relationships and attachment style to school completion. The Journal of Genetic

Psychology, 170, 53–71.

Robertson, H. J. (1999). Poor logic and poor children. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 552–553.

Ross, R. (1996). The movement towards teaching and healing. In Returning to the teachings:

Exploring Aboriginal Justice (pp. 5–28). Toronto: Penguin.

Sefa Dei, G. J. (2002). Situating race and equity concerns in school effectiveness discourse. In C.

Reynolds & A. Griffith (Eds.), Equity and globalization in education (pp. 165–181).

Calgary: Detselig.


36

Shaw, G. (2007). Restorative practices in Australian schools: Changing relationships, changing

culture. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 127–135.

Shochet, I. M., Smyth, T., & Homel, R. (2007). The impact of parental attachment on adolescent

perception of the school environment and school connectedness. Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 28(2), 109–118.

Skorikov, V., & Vondracek, F. W. (2007). Positive career orientation as an inhibiter of

adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 131–146.

Skrla, L., Scheurich, J.J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership

tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 40, 133–161.

Stipek, D. (2006, Sept). Relationships matter. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 46–49.

Tharinger, D., & Wells, G. (2000). An attachment perspective on the developmental challenges

of gay and lesbian adolescents: The need for continuity of caregiving from family and

schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 158–172.

Yearwood, D. L., & Abdum-Muhaymin, J. (2007). Juvenile structured day programs for

suspended and expelled youth: An evaluation of process and impact. Preventing School

Failure, 51(4), 47–61.

Zambrana, R. E., & Zoppi, I. M. (2002). Latina students: Translating cultural wealth into social

capital to improve academic success. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social

Work, 11(1/2), 33–54.

Ziesemer, C., Marcoux, L., & Manvell, B. (1994, Nov). Homeless children: Are they different

from other low-income children? Social Work, 39, 658–668.

Zwarych, S. (2004). Student attachment to school in three secondary schools. Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

school attachment theory and restitution …positive social skill development and engagement of...

Documents